May 19, 2020

Quote of the Day

When considering the quality of an argument, thou shalt not consider the source of the argument.

In a previous post on the Ad Hominem argument, I focused on the fallacy of No Estimates, whose proponents claim, fallaciously, that you can make informed decisions in the presence of uncertainty without estimating the impact of those decisions. I emphasize the word informed because they (NE advocates) and now others, for example, can decide to NOT estimate is the work is of a fixed duration. Why do I need an estimate if I know we will only work for a fixed amount of time - a time-boxed effort.

Well, GrassHopper, in that fixed period of time - the Time Boxed sprint or spike in Scrum - there are still uncertainties. Reducible uncertainties and Irreducible uncertainties, that both create a risk to whatever outcome you are expecting. And as a few have conjectured, there is NO expected outcome, we are just spending the firm's money and taking out our brains and playing with them, then the non-recoverable sunk cost of that expenditure is just that - non-recoverable.

Back to the Point

It does not matter whether the argument was given by Richard Nixon or Mother Teresa or Al Capone or St. Francis or God Herself.

The argument must stand or fall on its own merits. The argument may come from the mouth of the uninformed or the mouth of a world-class expert —it doesn’t matter.

The argument cannot be judged by its source.

For the argument to be productive — whether it is adversarial or cooperative — requires respect for the participants in the argument. Attacks on character and motives that have become standard practice in today's world of social media. The ad hominem fallacy is committed when one attempts to discredit an argument by attacking the source of the argument. But not all ad hominem arguments involve the ad hominem fallacy. Most ad hominem arguments do not commit the ad hominem fallacy.

An ad hominem argument commits the ad hominem fallacy only if it attacks the source of an argument and claims that because of some flaw in the source of the argument itself is flawed. If President Trump argues that we should improve our trade relations with China, then we must evaluate his arguments on their own merits; to claim that the flaws in Trump's character weaken his argument is to commit the ad hominem fallacy.

Ad hominem attacks have no place in critical discussion:

They poison the atmosphere and make serious discussion impossible

Name-calling is not an argument - it is fallacious.

The source of an argument is irrelevant to the quality of that argument.

No estimates advocates are prone to ad hominem attacks. As well they accuse their critics, who are asking for principled evidence that you can make informed decisions in the presence of uncertainty while spending other people's money without estimating the impact of that decision an attack on them.

When ad hominem arguments are fallacious, they are fallacious not because the attack on the person making the argument is false.

Ad hominem arguments are fallacious because the attack on the arguer is irrelevant to the quality of the arguer’s argument. Arguments must be judged on their own merits. The origin or originator of the argument doesn’t matter.

Comments

Quote of the Day

When considering the quality of an argument, thou shalt not consider the source of the argument.

In a previous post on the Ad Hominem argument, I focused on the fallacy of No Estimates, whose proponents claim, fallaciously, that you can make informed decisions in the presence of uncertainty without estimating the impact of those decisions. I emphasize the word informed because they (NE advocates) and now others, for example, can decide to NOT estimate is the work is of a fixed duration. Why do I need an estimate if I know we will only work for a fixed amount of time - a time-boxed effort.

Well, GrassHopper, in that fixed period of time - the Time Boxed sprint or spike in Scrum - there are still uncertainties. Reducible uncertainties and Irreducible uncertainties, that both create a risk to whatever outcome you are expecting. And as a few have conjectured, there is NO expected outcome, we are just spending the firm's money and taking out our brains and playing with them, then the non-recoverable sunk cost of that expenditure is just that - non-recoverable.

Back to the Point

It does not matter whether the argument was given by Richard Nixon or Mother Teresa or Al Capone or St. Francis or God Herself.

The argument must stand or fall on its own merits. The argument may come from the mouth of the uninformed or the mouth of a world-class expert —it doesn’t matter.

The argument cannot be judged by its source.

For the argument to be productive — whether it is adversarial or cooperative — requires respect for the participants in the argument. Attacks on character and motives that have become standard practice in today's world of social media. The ad hominem fallacy is committed when one attempts to discredit an argument by attacking the source of the argument. But not all ad hominem arguments involve the ad hominem fallacy. Most ad hominem arguments do not commit the ad hominem fallacy.

An ad hominem argument commits the ad hominem fallacy only if it attacks the source of an argument and claims that because of some flaw in the source of the argument itself is flawed. If President Trump argues that we should improve our trade relations with China, then we must evaluate his arguments on their own merits; to claim that the flaws in Trump's character weaken his argument is to commit the ad hominem fallacy.

Ad hominem attacks have no place in critical discussion:

They poison the atmosphere and make serious discussion impossible

Name-calling is not an argument - it is fallacious.

The source of an argument is irrelevant to the quality of that argument.

No estimates advocates are prone to ad hominem attacks. As well they accuse their critics, who are asking for principled evidence that you can make informed decisions in the presence of uncertainty while spending other people's money without estimating the impact of that decision an attack on them.

When ad hominem arguments are fallacious, they are fallacious not because the attack on the person making the argument is false.

Ad hominem arguments are fallacious because the attack on the arguer is irrelevant to the quality of the arguer’s argument. Arguments must be judged on their own merits. The origin or originator of the argument doesn’t matter.